Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate ----

¶11

5 /11.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶12

The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar in Mutation Case No.732 R27/2022-2023 as well as for direction upon the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Deoghar to expedite the Appeal Case No.22/ 2023-2024 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in said mutation case.

¶13

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Circle Officer, Deoghar in a routine way has passed the order coming to the finding that the said land is being examined by the C.B.I. He submits that the appellate authority during pendency of this appeal, has passed the order which has been brought on record by way of I.A. No.6648 of 2024. He submits that the appellate authority has again erred in coming to the finding that the petitioners have not been able to show that the said land was a Basauri land it was out-side the purview of C.B.I enquiry and the charge sheet is also not against the petitioners, and

¶14

1

¶15

in view of that the appellate authority order is further bad in law.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the plot in question is the subject matter of enquiry by the C.B.I. and submits that such type of land scam has come out in the district of Deoghar and that is being scrutinized by the C.B.I and pursuant to that, the Circle Officer has passed the said order. He submits that after providing full opportunity of hearing, the appellate authority has passed the order dated 15.04.2024. He further submits that the petitioners are having alternative remedy by way of filing revision before the learned revisional court under section 16 of Bihar Tenancy Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and he submits that in view of that, this petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶17

The Court finds that the learned Circle Officer has given finding that the said land is subject matter of enquiry by the C.B.I. and against that order the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the learned Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Deoghar in Appeal No.22/ 2023-2024 and the appellate authority has given full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is observed that learned appellate authority has found that the petitioner in course of hearing has not provided any document to suggest that the said land has not come within the domain of C.B.I enquiry.

¶18

In view of above and considering that the petitioners are having alternative remedy, this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy.

¶19

With above observation, W.P.(C) No.1562 of 2024is disposed of.

¶20

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

SI/,

¶23

2

Meena Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Dhanraj Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Hansda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Durga Prasad Mathuri Vs the General Manager and Project Director National Highway Authority of India

Sujit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deptt of Revenue and Registration and Land Reforms

Rewatkala Local Reservoir Displaced Fisherman Development Matsyajeevi Sahyog Committee Vs the State of Jharkhand